Gay Patriot Header Image

Global warming is surely to blame

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:30 pm - February 8, 2011.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico:

Thirty-five animals at a zoo in the northern Mexico state of Chihuahua have frozen to death during the region’s coldest weather in six decades.

Serengeti Zoo owner Alberto Hernandez says 14 parrots, 13 serpents, five iguanas, two crocodiles and a capuchin monkey died. He said Saturday that power failures cut off electrical heating at the zoo in the town of Aldama.

Emphasis added.  Coldest weather in six decades? Must be global warming. I mean, it has to be, right? Al Gore all but said as much. What else could it be?

Share

80 Comments

  1. I am at a loss as to what you think all those scientists (who make up the scientific consensus) are doing,

    Fishing for grant money. I mean, let’s face it, scientists are human beings. If politicians and activists group offer them millions in grants money to find ‘Global Warming,’ and if their continued wealth and celebrity depend on continuing to find evidence of ‘Global Warming,’ then a number of scienticians are going to come up with Global Warming, even if they have to fudge the data and “hide the decline.”

    Or, is all that research done by the Tobacco Institute suddenly rehabilitated?

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 5:46 am - February 10, 2011

  2. I propose that Levi, Karen and Rob show some leadership and save the planet by ceasing to use the internet. Computers and such devices use up a great deal of energy, not just in use, but in production, shipment, etc. The plastics are made from oil, the copper (electronics use lots of copper) come from mountaintop strip mines. The raw materials are from one continent, refined on another, shipped to another for assembly, and shipped back to the US for distribution and sale.

    What an enormous carbon footprint, all to fulfill your greedy, selfish lust for entertainment. Cant get much less essential than that!

    So put your money where your mouths are. Save the environment! Turn off your earth-destroying computers, and go away and never come back.

    rationalization for why THEY should not sacrifice even their most frivolous energy use, but other people should lose their entire way of life in 3…2…1…

    Comment by American Elephant — February 10, 2011 @ 5:59 am - February 10, 2011

  3. AE, I think it’s safe to assume that unless Rob, Levi, and Karen each send me $10,000 to buy my carbon credits, they hate the Earth and want it to burn up. (Using the time-proven liberal formulation, “If you don’t support my policies 100%, you are a hater.”)

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 8:24 am - February 10, 2011

  4. “I am at a loss as to what you think all those scientists (who make up the scientific consensus) are doing, if not following the scientific method.”

    ———–

    These ‘impartial scientists’ are much more biased that anyone on the left is willing to admit. In some cases they are down right bigoted.

    It’s as if they believe that the label of ‘Scientist’ nullifies all their human flaws. It reminds me of religious fundamentalism.

    Social Scientist Sees Bias Within – New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=2&hp

    “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

    Comment by gastorgrab — February 10, 2011 @ 9:15 am - February 10, 2011

  5. Cas at #47 cleverly tries to ooze the argument into shooting at cans on fence posts:

    To me, this is a critical issue–the nay sayers have been very diligent about saying “no.” But I haven’t seen anything about what they think would constitute evidence that they could accept. Its OK if you just point me to a link that you like that deals with the queries I have raised. You know the “no” side better than I do, and I am interested to explore the question I have raised with you.

    Let us say that, oh, I don’t know … that Keynesian economics will fix our economy. Up pop the nay-sayers diligently saying “no.” So, Cas in his best matter-of-fact manner asks what he could provide to win the case on Keynesian economics. And he says he will actually review any evidence that has tainted helped inform my view. How kind of him.

    Well, Cas, much of economics is opinion driven drivel. If it had ever reached anything close to a “system” of analysis, you could buy programs that would beat the market every time and make you a sure winner in Vegas and catch Soros, Madoff, Enron, derivatives, and bundlers in action.

    You know what? Weather “best-guesses” are a lot better than they used to be, but what accuracy do we have for nailing hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, etc. a year out? So, we start with the hole in the ozone and all of the CFC stuff and Montreal Protocol and even look at a way to crack the carbon-fluorine bond by using a silicon-based catalyst that recycles itself, so it can spark the breakdown reaction over and over again. Except, like massive use of DDT, we do not understand the unexpected consequences of seeding the atmosphere to do one thing and, oops, causing something that is potentially worse.

    Your man-made global warming guess is based on incomplete science and has morphed into a huge political food fight complete with secret data, manipulated data to achieve desired results and Al Gore and the carbon credit exchange and storm door company.

    And you would like me to point out what costume you could wear that would elicit my trust in this? Look at this way. Science has been working hard and long in curing cancer. Hooray for science. But you want me to believe that a bunch of long-haired maggots with computers and an agenda can analyze the atmosphere of the entire globe and shoot it with magic treatments and make it better?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 9:24 am - February 10, 2011

  6. Helio, I am pretty sure Cas is being disingenuous rather than merely lazy. A quick search would lead him to websites like ‘Watts Up With That’ that collect the scientific evidence contra the case for catastrophic man-made Global Warming, primarily focusing on deficiencies in the methodologies used to reach the conclusion that ‘the Earth has a fever.’ Cas just wants us to waste our time doing his homework for him, only to dismiss whatever we link to as “anecdotal” or tainted because one of the scientists used to have a Texaco gas card and is therefore part of the Global Oil Cabal.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 9:44 am - February 10, 2011

  7. No doubt about it, V the K. I am amused at his debutante at the stable mucking event persona. “How interesting that you do not agree with me, could you possibly educate me more? I simply thirst for knowledge.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 9:58 am - February 10, 2011

  8. I thought Cas was a girl???

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 11:10 am - February 10, 2011

  9. I thought Cas was a girl???

    Genderist!

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 10, 2011

  10. The weather report for El Salvador is that a cold wave is coming from the north and will last for several days. Global warming in action. It is recommened that we wear heavy jackets to avoid becoming ill. The beautiful 90 degree days and warm nights are slipping away.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - February 10, 2011

  11. Sonic: Who knows? Probably not even Cas. He could be a Cassandra in drag. Or maybe he is Cassiopeia in drag. Or maybe he is Castor of the Gemini or Castor of all things beaver. But to us, he/she/it is just predictable.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 12:10 pm - February 10, 2011

  12. Roberto!

    Get a life! Cold waves just recharge man-made global warming. Next week you will have droughts and deserts right after the locusts strip the forests and the oceans rise to cover two-thirds of your land mass. Good luck!

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - February 10, 2011

  13. Hi all,
    I ask a simple question. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model? I grant that it is a conceptually difficult question, but one that I think works within the range of normal science. It is not a question of anecdotal evidence, but of experimental design, VK. Surely someone, a scientist perhaps, who supports the views you espouse, has given it some thought? All I want is a clear link to read that source.

    Heliotrope points me to a website that collects a lot of articles posted that cast a negative light on climate change theory but which as far as I can tell, wading through them, doesn’t actually offer anything to answer the question I have asked.

    “Your man-made global warming guess is based on incomplete science and has morphed into a huge political food fight complete with secret data, manipulated data to achieve desired results and Al Gore and the carbon credit exchange and storm door company.” For sake of argument, let me grant you your premise, Heliotrope. I still ask my question and it still goes unanswered.

    For example: Would the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet be a crystallizing event that would make you change your mind? If not, what proved experimental prediction would?

    Also, here is my prediction for the coming Atlantic hurricane season–it is going to be active, and hurricanes will land with greater frequency in the Americas then they did last year. Why? La Nina conditions prevail.

    And thank you Sonicfrog, “Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can’t possibly be to blame.” I agree with you. That was the point that I raised with regards to Dan’s original post: using anecdotal evidence for either side is not very helpful, and proves nothing in itself. That is why scientists have been doing observational work to nail this issue down. Even with some concerns about methodology and “Climategate,” the majority of scientists have reached a consensus, one that many here actively disagree with, that human activity is a cause of climate change–based on these observations.

    Finally, for gastrogarb, I agree with you that scientists can be biased. That is the whole point of the scientific method–to take that bias out of the results, so that scientists can examine a set of observations and agree on what they might mean (Unless you are arguing about bias given Kuhn’s or Feyerabendi’s framework of scientific progress?) What is going on now is an argument about methodologies and models. But even with that ongoing argument, the majority of scientists agree that there is plenty of evidence supporting the contention of human induced climate change. A minority of scientists are unconvinced. OK. I do not think that either of these two sides are arguing in bad faith.

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 12:31 pm - February 10, 2011

  14. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model?

    It would be persuasive if any of their computer models, (using verified data and modeling algorithms that were peer reviewed by outside skeptics and not fellow members of the cult), actually predicted an outcome that was verified in nature as demonstrated by reliable data that was released for public scrutiny.

    None of these conditions has ever been met by those propagating the Global Warming Hysteria. The fact that NASA pointedly refuses to release its raw climate measurement data does little to inspire confidence.

    And maybe if all the celebrity global warming activists gave up their private jets and actually modeled the lifestyle they want to reduce everyone else to, that might persuade me that they really believe the fable they’re promoting.

    Also, Cas and Rob could just buy my carbon credits, if they are so concerned about the environment. Mine are certainly as good as any of the other ones being sold out there. And as long they refuse to buy my carbon credits, I will conclude, using standard liberal logic, that they hate the environment.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 1:12 pm - February 10, 2011

  15. Cas, I didn’t direct you anywhere. I am not playing your prove God exists game.

    As to the Greenland ice shelf collapsing, it did sometime in the 1300’s to the early to mid 1400’s. You could circumnavigate Greenland and the Vikings had active sheep farms which are now slowly emerging from the ice that has covered them. That would be the ice that starved the Vikings out. The Germanic people worked silver mines in the 1300’s that were exposed recently when a glacier in the Alps receded.

    When the scientists have determined what happened and why completely figured out, modeled and then applied to other periods of climate change with near perfect accuracy, then I will begin to think they know what they are doing. Right now, we are in the climate change alchemy stage.

    Wow! The goddess La Nina appears. What is the clear, scientific understanding of what causes La Nina, when where and how it will appear and how specifically will it effect the rice crops in Arkansas?

    Can you beat the Farmer’s Almanac in your hazy predictions?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 1:20 pm - February 10, 2011

  16. Cas,

    If there was any consistancy in the predictions, then maybe I’d give the alarmists some credence.

    Back in 1990 ZZ Top released Recycler. Back then, they parroted the line “We have only 10 years to save the planet. It starts with you and it’s easy: buy environmentally sound products; pressure political leaders; love and respect all life; turn off lights; car pool; recycle.”

    21 years later and, mysteriously, we still have ten years to save the planet.

    In the 1970’s and 80’s we had the mass starvation, famine and depletion of resources predicted in the Population bomb.

    Oh wait, we didn’t.

    Despite being made a fool of with his doom and gloom, the doom sayers still get their words across.

    So what would I need to see as ‘proof’?

    Actual proof of climate change linked to human activity. So far there is none.

    Actual steps to address this ‘issue’. I see no new nuclear plants, no real action taken for China and India, and no proof the draconian methods suggested for the west will do anything but destroy livelyhoods and income.

    The people who preach doom and gloom actually taking meaningful steps to change their own lifestyles to match what they wish to impose on us

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 10, 2011 @ 1:28 pm - February 10, 2011

  17. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model? I grant that it is a conceptually difficult question, but one that I think works within the range of normal science.

    Cas, here’s the problem. I can’t speak for the others here, but for me, this is a false dichotomy. The big problem here is that the question is set up as a scenario where you either accept all, or nothing. The alarmist side of the AGW proponents, who are the scientists embedded within NASA, NOAA, and especially the IPCC, many of those all being the same group of guys “The Team” have taken away the middle ground. You’re either completely with them, completely, and don’t question them, or you are labeled anti-science and a denier.

    I’m not sure if you are familiar with climate scientists such as Rodger Pielke Sr or Judith Curry. Even though both believe that man-made CO2 (not quite the right term, but I’ll use it her) does influence the current warming trend, both, especially Pielke, point to other factors that also are contributing. Pielke has published over 350 peer reviewed papers in climate journals documenting how changes in land use has also contributed to the warming trend of the 20th Century. And for his work, by point to other sources of warming, he gets labeled, in no uncertain terms, a denier. Curry points out that, based on actual observation, there is NO DISCERNIBLE LINK between hurricanes, their strength or frequency, and global warming, And for this, she is labeled a denier.

    Some here may not believe that the extra CO2 emitted by humans have actually had much to do with the current warming trend. I can’t put myself in that camp. BUT, being a former geology major, knowing the epochal history of the Earth concerning the lack of correlation between CO2 and temp, where several multi 100 million year periods have had much much high CO2 and low temps, and vise-a-versa, it is very difficult to ignore 3.5 billion years Earths history, and the general lack of a firm causal relationship between CO2 and temps, to suddenly find that CO2 is a main driver of the worlds climate.

    You ask:

    “Would the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet be a crystallizing event that would make you change your mind? If not, what proved experimental prediction would?”

    Horrible example. We already know the glaciers are melting, as we are coming out of the little ice age. Just because the ice is melting does not mean that we are causing it. You still have to prove that the warming itself was caused by us. We also know, due to irrefutable anthropological evidence, that 7 to 9 Centuries ago there was also much less ice on the continent of Greenland than there is today. And no one has, despite best efforts, provided a firm reason why it was so much warmer then. That warm period was caused by natural variability, and we really don’t have a firm grip scientifically on exactly what that looked like. There are a number of hypothesis being worked on, but nothing solidly agreed on.

    Also, here is my prediction for the coming Atlantic hurricane season–it is going to be active, and hurricanes will land with greater frequency in the Americas then they did last year. Why? La Nina conditions prevail.

    That prediction is based on research done by one Dr. William Gray. From NOAA:

    Dr. William Gray at the Colorado State University has pioneered research efforts leading to the discovery of La Niña impacts on Atlantic hurricane activity, and to the first and, presently only, operational long-range forecasts of Atlantic basin hurricane activity. According to this research, the chances for the continental U.S. and the Caribbean Islands to experience hurricane activity increases substantially during La Niña.

    Do note, , Dr William Gray is a confirmed “denialist“!

    “I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring. … I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern. I see this as a major cause of climate change. … These are natural processes. We shouldn’t blame them on humans and CO2.”

    He has been a long time opponent of the idea of a causal relationship between hurricanes and ocean phenomenon such as El Nino and La Nina, and supports research that concludes the oceans are the prime driver in long term warming and cooling events, not CO2.

    But… Again. Dr. William Gray is marginalized… Why? Because he is not a “true believer” in the man-made hypothesis of global warming.

    Gotta go now.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 3:20 pm - February 10, 2011

  18. Hi all,
    Heliotrope, “What is the clear, scientific understanding of what causes La Nina, when where and how it will appear and how specifically will it effect the rice crops in Arkansas?” I have no idea about rice crops in Arkansas, though I imagine a hurricane’s remnants might be helpful, though too much of a good thing…? As for a nice explanation, check out: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/elnino/mainpage.html, or, http://factoidz.com/all-about-la-nina/. The bottom line is that there is still a lot of work needed to understand why these phenomena occur; but that they occur, with some regularity has achieved the status of “scientific consensus.”

    Hey VK, thank you: “It would be persuasive if any of their computer models, (using verified data and modeling algorithms that were peer reviewed by outside skeptics and not fellow members of the cult), actually predicted an outcome that was verified in nature as demonstrated by reliable data that was released for public scrutiny.” Here is hoping that such an event occurs, and does so quickly.
    As for, “As to the Greenland ice shelf collapsing, it did sometime in the 1300′s to the early to mid 1400′s.” I do not think we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about ice around the edges of the land (where the vikings had their settlements), or the ice in the sea, but the ice on the land itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Greenland.

    “Also, Cas and Rob could just buy my carbon credits, if they are so concerned about the environment.” Actually, perhaps in time, we could both buy publicly traded carbon credits in this country’s national market, and both help the environment and make some money at the same time…

    Hi TL,
    You raise good points about doomsayers. I agree about a lot of them. They didn’t take into account that we do change our behaviour in the face of scarcity. As oil prices rose, we used less oil, and used oil saving technologies. So, these predictions are made, not allowing for the manner in which we change behaviour, in response to price. Capitalism is good that way. One aside: One way the market allocates this scarce resource is to just price it out of the reach of those who would like it, but cannot afford it. That goes for individuals and also for countries (especially in Africa, at the moment). What capitalism is not good about is what happens when we get changes in relative scarcity that move too quickly to be reflected effectively in prices. The main worry, I think, about global climate change is that–if true–it will cause a series of catastrophic events that we will not be able to “smoothly” factor into price changes. The best example I can come up with right now is the impact of various natural disasters we are having with the ability of private companies to insure against those disasters. If climate change advocates are right, there will be more and more disasters with greater power, which means that there will be more and more areas where one cannot get private house insurance in this country because of perceived risks due to prevailing weather conditions; or were insurers will be more and more keen to push insured members off their rolls. With regards to oil, there is evidence to suggest that we have seen the end of plentiful oil, and that oil production is on a downward trend. As long as that decline in production is a slow and graceful one, we can adapt as a capitalist economy. But that is an “if.” I wonder what would happen to gasoline prices in this country, if there is a major political convulsion in Saudi Arabia, that lasts three months?

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - February 10, 2011

  19. Hi Sonicfrog,
    Thank you for your great reply!
    My claim about hurricanes is not based on Dr. Gray’s work, but on my own reading of the implications of what La Nina means. It is nice though to see that my intuitions have scientific support from those who know much more about this stuff than I do!

    “I’m not sure if you are familiar with climate scientists such as Rodger Pielke Sr or Judith Curry.” I am not familiar with their work, but I will take the time to check out some citations, and see if some of their papers are on-line. If you have one or two that you think would be most helpful, I would appreciate the heads up.

    I just want to be clear–I am not arguing that humans alone are causing the problem. I understand that we have variability in climate, but I also believe that humans are a significant factor in the changes we are experiencing in global climate at the moment.

    As for Greenland, I will hold back on agreeing with your assessment of my claim. The main reason I have is that the milder climate that Greenland experienced before our “mini-Ice” had its main impact on the coastal areas, and that the middle of Greenland was not strongly affected. From what I have read the extent of melting has accelerated. This could be an anomaly, but it is consistent with steadily rising temperatures we have experiencing over the last thirty years. The question, as always: is this increase in temperature (and thus the melting) something that was caused (to some extent) by human activity?
    Thanks for the conversation.

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - February 10, 2011

  20. Cas,

    Very glad we can converse and not yell at each other. I usually simply don’t reply to those, as they are never an exchange of viewpoints on a respectable level.

    On Greenland. The warming and melting was much more than a coastal phenomenon. You have to have a long term warm period to even melt the coastal ice. In our current status, we have had a sustained warming of 150 years to get to the point where we are now. As far as the entire continental sheet melting? That is on the very extreme of climate predictions, the type that Al Gore loves to trot out. Yet, the likelihood of that happening, as it appears in both the scientific lit and in the IPCC report, is not considered to be high.

    And, the latest research seems to suggest that the ice movement we have seen is due less to global warming than to other factors:

    Greenland ice sheet flow driven by short-term weather extremes, not gradual warming: UBC research

    And

    Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage

    This is a harder paper to wrap your head around. If I understand it, they are saying that the glacial flow is less than they would have expected under current warming conditions. The paper is behind a paywall, which is really annoying (unless you are a head honcho for Nature! 🙂

    So, any way, a melting Greenland may turn out to be less of a threat than many have painted it to be.

    PS. The same might be said for the Arctic, as it looks like similar mechanisms may be at play in that region, and their may be no Arctic tipping point after all..

    Declines in the summer sea ice extent have led to concerns within the scientific community that the Arctic Ocean may be nearing a tipping point, beyond which the sea ice cap could not recover. In such a scenario, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap outgoing radiation, and as the Sun beats down 24 hours a day during the Arctic summer, temperatures rise and melt what remains of the polar sea ice cap. The Arctic Ocean, now less reflective, would absorb more of the Sun’s warmth, a feedback loop that would keep the ocean ice free.

    However, new research by Tietsche et al. suggests that even if the Arctic Ocean sees an ice-free summer, it would not lead to catastrophic runaway ice melt. The researchers, using a general circulation model of the global ocean and the atmosphere, find that Arctic sea ice recovers within 2 years of an imposed ice-free summer to the conditions dictated by general climate conditions during that time. Furthermore, they find that this quick recovery occurs whether the ice-free summer is triggered in 2000 or in 2060, when global temperatures are predicted to be 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer.

    Granted, this is just one study, and it needs replication by others. But it does give pause to many assumptions about the behavior of the colder regions.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - February 10, 2011

  21. Heliotrope,

    I have a life and good one at that. This is the wrong time for a cold wave. As for the forrests, they were stripped years ago, not by locausts but by communists. If the oceans rise and cover the land and takes a bunch of the FMLN out to se, that would be a good thing.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - February 10, 2011

  22. The Greenhouse Effect -> Global Warming -> Climate Change -> Temperature Goblins -> Humidity Vampirism -> Charles Nelson Reilly

    Comment by JervisTetch — February 10, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - February 10, 2011

  23. Correction, line three s/b locusts
    line four, s/b sea.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 4:47 pm - February 10, 2011

  24. PS. On the question “what would make me change my view”?

    For the first time since in the last 40 years, we are entering a phase where several natural variations are entering into colling phases at the same time. The PDO has turned negative, as has the AMO. The 11 year solar cycle has also unexpectedly ended up lagging in strength, and we may see something akin to the Dalton minimum. These are know natural events which should bring temps down as least some. If these factors stay in their current configuration and do not change – ceteris paribus – AND global temps do not go down but instead go up….. That will go a very long way to providing confidence in the man-made CO2 global warming link.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 4:53 pm - February 10, 2011

  25. Hi Sonicfrog,
    “For the first time since in the last 40 years, we are entering a phase where several natural variations are entering into colling phases at the same time. The PDO has turned negative, as has the AMO. The 11 year solar cycle has also unexpectedly ended up lagging in strength, and we may see something akin to the Dalton minimum. These are know natural events which should bring temps down as least some. If these factors stay in their current configuration and do not change – ceteris paribus – AND global temps do not go down but instead go up….. That will go a very long way to providing confidence in the man-made CO2 global warming link”

    Thank you so much for a really useful, empirical, and potentially verifiable experiment. As for your other points, I will have to read them and get back to you on them. And I too appreciate the opportunity for a cordial conversation! 🙂

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - February 10, 2011

  26. There is another potential NV that has also turned south… but I don’t remember what it is at the moment.

    Another thing to keep in mind. Here is a post by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate, concerning the predicted warming by GCM’s, and the observed. It is still within the margin of error.

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/model10.jpg

    Yet, if climate temps follow the trend the typically do during a La Nina conditions (1999, 2008) then temps will continue to migrate out of the bottom end of the predicted margin of error. That will mean there will have to be a very sizable warming shift that is not caused by an El Nino pattern for the temps to realign with IPCC predictions. As it stands now, if the 15 year trend continues, observations will fall through the bottom end of the error bars, and that will put a serious strain on the theory that extra CO2 has a high dominance on global temperatures.

    Again, the question isn’t whether or not CO2 has an effect, the question is, after sifting through the natural variations and positive and negative forcings… how much does it contribute to the warming signal we see.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - February 10, 2011

  27. A few errors in the last two posts.

    Here is the Gavin link

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

    One of these days I’m going to actually proof read my comments… But not today!!! 🙂

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - February 10, 2011

  28. I am not talking about ice around the edges of the land (where the vikings had their settlements), or the ice in the sea, but the ice on the land itself,

    Considering the Greenland Ice Cap has survived several thousand years during temperature periods that were much, much warmer than the Earth is today, I am not worried.

    And so what if the climate does change? We’re humans. We’ll cope. Certainly adaptation is a more viable strategy then attempting to control nature, if evolution teaches us anything.

    Comment by The Narrative — February 10, 2011 @ 6:03 pm - February 10, 2011

  29. It all boils down to this:

    Proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming made a claim based on their observations, and they presented evidence to support that hypothesis. Their evidence was later found to be corrupted.

    Now all that remains is their unsupported claim. It doesn’t matter how many “scientists” agree with the original premise. Consensus is not evidence. Speculation is not evidence. Only that which conforms to the Scientific Method can be said to be an ‘Objective Truth’.

    Their original suspicions weren’t proven or disproven by the corruption of their data, or by the inconsistency of their methodology. Likewise, if a man was accused of murder because all of the evidence pointed in his direction, but only later was it discovered that the lab had mixed up the results of the testing, it is NO REFLECTION on the man’s character. It doesn’t matter that everyone on the police force thinks he’s guilty.

    The American people have been accused of a ‘Carbon Crime’, and the prosecutors case has fallen apart. Why should there be any sentencing phase?

    We don’t care what the moral implications are of releasing a “potentially guilty” person back into society. We are trying to establish guilt or innocence, not to speculate about the after-effects of our actions.

    ——–

    We are already past the point where anything could be done to prevent the destruction of all life on earth due to Anthropogenic-Warming. The most meager efforts to slow the production of carbon dioxide in this country will economically devastate the US, and will be insignificant compared to the projected increases in carbon production in India and China.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — February 11, 2011 @ 10:00 am - February 11, 2011

  30. […] our upside-down, record-breaking cold and snow, “AGW, uh, causes global warming AND global cooling” world, battling “global warming” is high on the Department of Homeland Security’s […]

    Pingback by Cold As Ice: Global Warming Political Cartoon “Son of Scam” Roundup « Frugal Café Blog Zone — February 13, 2011 @ 8:58 pm - February 13, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.